On Fri, 2006-19-05 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> > > [...] http://evan.prodromou.name/CC_Licence_Distinctions > > I think some of that is shooting at shadows, some is hyperbole > and some is contentious: You're free to think what you like, but if you're going to make derogatory public remarks, intellectual integrity requires that you provide evidence for your opinions. > > would it be acceptable to use the Debian trademarks (name and/or open > > use logo) to underline that fact? > > At the point a licence is available permitting it. I think at the very basic sense there's a nominal use: if works under a license are in Debian, then it's clear and fair to use the Debian name to state that fact. > Isn't it confusing to use the trademark for licences rather > than software itself? No. The license that a work is available under is a large factor in whether or not a work can be included in Debian. Choosing the right license doesn't ensure that a work will be included, but choosing the wrong license ensures that it will not. Identifying a license as DFSG-compatible lets licensors make informed decisions when choosing a license. > I'd prefer to promote "this is in debian" and "this could go > well with debian" marks for software itself, more than licences. I hope that works out for you. Please let me know when you get that program off the ground, and I'll contact the developers of my favourite apps to encourage them to join in. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part